Library Instruction Literature Review

Much of the current literature published about library instruction is heeding the

call for new pedagogical perspectives on the instruction of information literacy. New
pedagogies are starting to emerge as higher education undergoes pivotal shifts that are
driven by rapidly changing digital technologies, new ways in which information is
shared, and the fiscal instability that permeates libraries (Booth, 2012). In response to
these changes, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information
Literacy Standards were revised incrementally from 2013 to 2015 to meet the current
needs of information literacy in higher education. The Task Force assigned to the new
framework for information literacy standards for higher education based the Framework
on emerging threshold concepts, which were developed by Erik Meyer and Ray Land in
2000, with an emphasis on teaching core concepts of economics. Threshold concepts
are defined by Meyer and Land as portals to understanding the core concepts of
academic disciplines, which facilitate teaching less salient concepts in information
literacy curricula, often referred to as troublesome knowledge in the current
conversation surrounding the development and instruction of information literacy.
While the majority of the literature I procured in my research recommend and
support the new Framework for ACRLs Information Literacy Standards for higher
education, literature that consider potential challenges to the Framework are a minority
in this conversation. During my research, questions about the Frameworks successful
praxis in utilizing kairos to improve learning opportunities and managing outcomes in
higher education surfaced as I began to absorb the respective literature circulating in
information literacy and higher education conversations. The minority voice in the
conversation about threshold concepts implores the questions what are the challenges

Kaplan, 1

Library Instruction Literature Review

of the Framework? Are the Frameworks threshold concepts inadvertently creating
troublesome concepts when applied in library instruction? Probing further into critical
conversations about the Framework revealed that threshold concepts may not allow for
resistance type thinking after a student masters the core concepts of information literacy
and could potentially encourage conformity in academia (Beilin, 2015). In other words,
the Framework may not be cultivating a critical perspective regarding the politics of
technological innovation. This last discovery deeply resonates with me because it poses
the question does the Framework undermine critical information literacy?
In order to address the above questions thoroughly, I think it serves this analysis
to commence with a review of the literature that supports the Framework for information
literacy and then review the dissenting opinions of the Framework. The majority of the
literature I researched suggests librarians are enthusiastic about developing and
applying threshold concepts to their information literacy curricula. Char Booth, an
Instruction Services Manager and E-learning Librarian at Claremont Colleges Library,
and Brian Matthews, the Associate Dean for Learning and Outreach at Virginia Tech,
posit, in a collaborative paper, Understanding the Learner Experience: Threshold
Concepts and Curriculum Mapping, that threshold concepts are key to the theory and
praxis of library instruction (2012). Moreover Booth and Matthews point out that
threshold concepts help library instructors to pinpoint liminality, or gaps, in the learners
experience (2012). Students were expected to meet the previous Standards of
information literacy without consideration of the students diverse experiences and the
emotional challenges that some students face when trying to overcome the liminal

Kaplan, 2

Library Instruction Literature Review

space that often cripples students in learning the core concepts of information literacy
(or any other academic discipline).
Booth and Matthews offer a method for finding thresholds through curriculum
mapping, which they believe will build a comprehensive understanding of the learner
experience (2012). According to Booth and Matthews, applying curriculum mapping to
information literacy will allow for customizable curricula that will help to better serve the
learner experience and augment the practitioners understanding of threshold concepts
in academic disciplines (2012). Booth and Matthews shared an example of how
curriculum mapping works in academic institutions by employing a free software
application called Mindomo (www.mndomo.com). At Claremont Colleges Library, where
Booth works, she has utilized Mindomo to help triangulate information from the course
catalog, websites, and communications with faculty (2012). As demonstrated by the
thorough application of curriculum mapping at Claremont Colleges Library, Booth has
been able to pinpoint and integrate threshold concepts across academic subjects, which
has lifted the veil of the deeper layers of information, such as degree tracks, course
sequences, and requirements available to both majors and minors (2012). From this
perspective, the emerging threshold concepts, along with curriculum mapping, can
leverage opportunities to discover troublesome knowledge and allow for greater
integration of academic disciplines.
According to a study conducted by Amy R. Hofer, Lori Townsend, and Korey
Brunetti, threshold concepts will encourage students to think and act like practitioners
themselves (2012). Hofer et al., reflecting on the practitioners mindset, point out, Far
removed from the beginners perspective, librarians may have forgotten the effort that

Kaplan, 3

Library Instruction Literature Review

went into becoming information literate (2012). The qualitative study conducted by
Hofer et al surveyed information literacy instructors to identify student struggles. The
survey intentionally did not introduce the practitioners to threshold concepts because it
is an idea that takes time to absorb and allowed the study to more easily pinpoint the
challenges that practitioners face in information literacy instruction (2012). Additionally,
Hofer et al., designed the survey in this way so that the study would reveal the
challenges of teaching tacit knowledge that often creates troublesome knowledge for
students and frustration for instructors (2012). The study conducted by Hofer et al.,
revealed threshold concepts that will help librarians to identify troublesome knowledge
and develop appropriate curricula for their students.
While the former Standards may, in retrospect, appear to be too prescriptive, the
broad strokes and hedging language of the Framework may prove to be too vague for
some library instructors to navigate. Debates on social media, blogs, and open letters
to the Frameworks Task Force suggest that some librarians are not entirely happy with
the sunsetting of ACRL Standards. However, critiques of the Framework remain the
minority in the conversation about the Frameworks potential for flexibility and versatility
in teaching information literacy. In 2014, one critical response to the Framework, An
Open Letter of New Jersey Librarians (Response to draft 3, 2014), offered a critical lens
to view the Framework. The New Jersey librarians argued, the word Standards is a
powerful and clear word (2014). They also stated in their letter, the standards
conversation is part of the national dialogue on improving education in the United
States (2014). A large part of An Open Letter of New Jersey Librarians focused on the
need for defined standards as a means to support national information literacy.

Kaplan, 4

Library Instruction Literature Review

Additionally, these librarians noted in their letter that the Task Force did not consider the
politics of higher education when creating the Framework (2014).
A former member of the Task Force for the Framework, Lane Wilkinson, who
directly engaged with the framing of new information literacy standards, deconstructs
the hedging challenges of threshold concepts in his blog, Sense and Reference. While
he does point out that he finds some kernel of truth in the threshold concepts, more
specifically he finds the kernel of truth to be within the six concepts of the Framework,
not in the threshold concepts themselves, he is reluctant to commit to the Frameworks
hedging language (2014). Wilkinson adamantly dismisses the Frameworks concept that
scholarship is a conversation. Instead, he argues that threshold concepts are agentrelative and therefore produce monolithic disciplines that reflect a dominant narrative in
academic disciplines (Wilkinson, 2014). Wilkinson also notes, The entire theory of
threshold concepts has a funny way of oversimplifying the very real distinctions and
difficulties that are inherent in a body of knowledge (2014).
Rod ODonnell, Professor of Economics at The University of Technology in
Sydney, Australia, echo Wilkinsons critique of threshold concepts in his paper, A
Critique of Threshold Concept Hypothesis and an Application in Economics. In his
paper, ODonnell investigates the praxis of threshold concept as it relates to the core
concept of economics, opportunity costs. He argues against the idea that threshold
concepts are a portal to deeper understanding and mastery of economics (2010).
ODonnells critique of threshold concepts primarily argues that there are disciplinary,
pedagogical, and social consequences that may have hegemonic consequences within
the intended transformations within academic disciplines (ODonnell, 2010). According

Kaplan, 5

Library Instruction Literature Review

to ODonnell threshold concepts may mimic economic hegemony and reinforce
disparities in academic disciplines (2010). ODonnell poses a counter argument to
those who see the potential in threshold concepts, It is also argued that the growing
literature on the hypothesis demonstrates alarming latitude in interpretation and
slippage into arbitrariness and meaninglessness (2010). In other words, ODonnell is
referring to the hedging language that creates vague ideas (probably, possibly,
potentially) or arbitrary ones that may become subordinate to fiats.
Emily Drabinski offers an alternative lens to view the Framework (and Standards)
in her literature review, Moving Toward a Kairos of Library Instruction. Her response to
the critiques of the Standards and those who support the less prescriptive Framework
acknowledges the dissenting opinions that believe the Framework may be recursively
creating the problem of the Procrustean bed (Drabinski, 2014). Drabinski points out that
even if the critics of the Standards find the new Framework to be better and more
flexible, The revised ACRL Framework will give the field a new global perspective that
must be translated locally (Drabinski, 2014). According to Drabinski, the consequence
of a local translation is that the global perspective will buttress knowledge as a
commodity, shifting the intended outcome from one that supports diverse student
experiences to a dominant external narrative.
Drabinski intervenes that what is missing in both critiques is a conversation about
the problematic axis of external and internal associations with information literacy
(Drabinski) and its dependence on a Framework that encourages a global perspective.
Drabinskis alternative to the Framework promotes the idea that librarians should
consider teaching with the idea of kairos at the forefront of their teaching methods

Kaplan, 6

Library Instruction Literature Review

(Drabinski, 2014). Kairos allows library instructors to teach in the moment and utilize the
idea of kairos as . . . an alibi for sidestepping debates about the Standards and the
Framework (Drabinski, 2014). From this perspective, Drabinski offers library instructors
a supplementary frame to view their library instruction from, which will allow library
instructors to discern content and pedagogy in their varied classroom environments
(Drabinski, 2014). Drabinskis analysis of the respective literature does not entirely
disregard the Framework. However, it does depart from the polarizing critiques of the
Framework, and subsumes pedagogical opportunities that are appropriate to the
moment.
Among the dissenting opinions about the Framework, Maura Seale, a library
instructor at Georgetown University, posits the Framework is a conflicted and
contradictory document that disseminates popular understandings of the Enlightenment
(Seale, 2015, 1 and 2). Seales analysis of the Framework surveys and deconstructs the
historical influence of popular Enlightenment principles embedded in American libraries
and its role in hegemonic contributions to information literacy. While Seale does not
view the Framework as neoliberalism, she contends that its frames are inconsistent in
their articulation of the way power relations influence information production and
consumption (2015). According to Seale, these inconsistencies amount to an
ambivalent acknowledgement of the Frameworks authoritative position (2015). Seale
points out that the Frameworks language is latently promoting a liberalism committed to
individualism without considering the consequence to collective identities and
unresolvable antagonisms in liberalism (2015).

Kaplan, 7

Library Instruction Literature Review

The debates over the Framework have a propensity to view the Framework as a
document that must provide concrete standards for teaching skills, while others hold the
Framework up as a pedagogical ideology. Yet, there are some library practitioners, like
Troy Swanson, who view the dichotomies of the Framework as a document for
argument in higher education conversations (2014). In Swansons blog post , The New
Information Literacy Framework and James Madison, he compares the debate around
the Framework to the challenges the framers of the Constitution faced when negotiating
the framework for the Constitution (2014). Like the framers of the Constitution, the Task
Force and the library community are grappling with a similar threshold. Swanson
suggests that it will take some time to adjust to the new Framework, but that it should
not be viewed as a permanent document (2014). Instead, Swanson points out, More
importantly, for our profession, I hope that this document is never a completed
document. This Framework should not be in existence for 14 years before it is revised.
If the next revision occurs in 2028, then we (as a profession) will have failed (2014).
As a method for understanding the context of the above literature, I interviewed
two library instructors, Anne Armstrong, Coordinator of Library Instruction at Richard J.
Daley Library, and Beth McDonough, Research and Instruction Librarian for the College
of Education and Allied Professions, with an emphasis in critical information literacy.
The following exploration of the interviews conducted with Armstrong and McDonough
will consider the various perspectives of the Framework presented in this literature
review. However, given that the final draft of the Framework was completed in 2015, the
analysis of the instruction librarians interviews will not include quantitative data.
Instead, qualitative responses will be included, then analyzed and compared with the

Kaplan, 8

Library Instruction Literature Review

literature to evaluate the potential praxis of the Framework in library instruction
environments.
While the library instructors I interviewed have not implemented the Framework,
discussion of the Framework has become a significant part of their conversations about
information literacy. Armstrong informed me that her staff will be implementing the
Framework in the summer of 2015. According to Armstrong, who has been teaching
information literacy for the last eight years at the Richard J. Daley Library, the
Frameworks predecessor, the Standards, have been used as a guide for her
instructional design and teaching methodology. She is hesitant to completely disregard
their merit. However, she noted the prescriptive language of the Standards was not
flexible with the demands of a diverse student population, particularly at a public
university like the University of Illinois at Chicago. Armstrong also pointed out that the
format of the Standards is too official, that is, it is structured like government documents
(e.g., Outcome 2.2.2.), which makes it difficult for her and staffers to sort through and
reference.
Moreover, Armstrong does not feel the Framework commodifies knowledge like
the above dissenters have assigned to the Framework, or hold the opinion that the
Framework is undermining critical information literacy. From her perspective, the
Framework provides a more flexible guide for teaching information literacy and allows
for more grey area as opposed to the scholarly versus popular distinctions in
information literacy. In particular, she suggested that information literacy should include
the conversations that happen outside of the traditional scholarly conversations. She
views, what some critics, like Maura Seale, have called ambivalent language that

Kaplan, 9

Library Instruction Literature Review

promotes knowledge as power (2015), as an opportunity to teach a diverse student
population. Armstrong thinks the change in information literacy standards will challenge
librarians in new ways that will benefit their instructional design. Yet, she admits that the
Framework may prove to be difficult for those librarians who are tied to order.
Armstrong is not unfamiliar with the literature on critical information literacy and
has acquired information on this topic from informal conversations with colleagues and
the library community. When I approached this subject with her she made me aware of
a review she wrote of Emily Drabinski, Maria T. Accardi, and Alana Kumbiers book
Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods. After reading Armstrongs review, I
noted her support for Drabinskis perspective on critical information literacy, offers a
theory-rich and refreshing contribution to the literature on information literacy and will
likely spark meaningful conversation about pedagogy among instruction librarians
(2011). Despite her enthusiasm for Drabinskis (et al.) perspective, it does not diminish
her support for the Framework. As Armstrong previously noted, she thinks the hedging
language of the Framework supports opportunities to utilize threshold concepts in
information literacy. Not unlike Swansons perspective on the Framework, Armstrong
views these opportunities as a process that will likely encourage change and provoke
argument among library practitioners.
Armstrongs library, which serves an urban campus of 25,000 students, offers
300 to 400 course integrated instruction courses to undergraduate students and 10
graduate student toolkit workshops throughout the academic year. This is no small
achievement for a library staff of 10, which includes part-time staffers and student
workers. Armstrongs enthusiasm for the Framework seems to be subordinated to the

Kaplan, 10

Library Instruction Literature Review

practical limitations of time, budgets, and resources, which greatly limit her librarys
ability to integrate information literacy into all academic subjects. Armstrong offers, In
an ideal world, we would have twice as many instruction librarians, and the ability to hire
staff to focus on instructional design. However, she also states, We [academic
librarians] are trying to find ways to embed information literacy into the curriculum by
collaborating with faculty.
When discussing the potential for the Frameworks threshold concepts to
facilitate the big picture or aha moment in library instruction, Armstrong pointed out,
The one-shot model is limiting. We try to do both, big and small picture. Realistically,
students do need to leave with resources they can incorporate into their research. For
Armstrong, this is where collaboration with faculty and embedding information literacy in
all subjects is one way to resolve the restrictions of time, budgets, and the limitations of
the one-shot model.
Similarly, McDonough, who has been teaching information literacy in academic
libraries for the last 18 years, feels the one-shot model could limit opportunities to teach
the overarching concept of information literacy, specifically when modeling information
expertise to students. Instead of teaching students to mimic 21st Century skills, her oneshot model emphasizes giving students control over their research process. Initially,
McDonough found ceding her control in the classroom intimidating, but the success of
her students diminished these doubts. McDonough noted in her interview, Ceding
control in the classroom allows students to begin their research with their own
experiences in the research process. A review of McDonoughs literature echoes her
statement on the positive effects from ceding control in her teaching methods, We all

Kaplan, 11

Library Instruction Literature Review

learn from each other, and I find that that when students are allowed to have a voice in
the process, they are much more willing to listen (2015). Despite her initial
reservations over reducing her authority in the classroom, McDonough offered,
Teaching information literacy is not about teaching the right way to do things, its about
constructing meaning.
McDonough feels that focusing on teaching tools and skills that are rapidly
changing in the 21st Century does not serve information literacy. Instead, it alienates
the existential experience of students, often leaving them in a liminal space, between
the us and them mentality that is produced by teaching from the Standards
(McDonough). McDonoughs comments on the Standards echo those of the
Frameworks assenters, I dislike the Standards and they amount to an unobtainable list
of tools and skills. They oversimplify the complex process of research and present the
false notion of education as Freires banking model. McDonough believes the
Standards have contributed to students lack of critical thinking skills and knowledge
ownership. She points out, The Standards contain 22 performance indicators and 87
outcomes. According to McDonough, The Standards only serve to confuse and
distract students, rather than support them on their individual journeys toward becoming
information literate.
Not surprisingly, McDonough is embracing ACRLs new Framework. In a new
era, where the tools of the information landscape are repurposed and redesigned at a
rapid pace, McDonough regards the Framework as a document that is meant to evolve
and is deliberately vague. She points outs, Some practitioners are already trying to
turn it into a codified list of skills; but the Framework was never intended for those

Kaplan, 12

Library Instruction Literature Review

purposes. In response to those who decry the Framework as academic hegemony,
McDonough is not sure how to satisfy them. Her own work (critical information literacy),
has been subject to similar criticism, which surprisingly, with its focus on critical
information literacy and reflective teaching, will not persuade those critics that regard
the Framework as academic hegemony. It seems the Framework is a double-edged
sword, which McDonough is not sure how to engage at this time, and points out, It
seems we cannot help students be successful in joining the academic and practitioner
communities they seek to join without being subject to accusations of being
hegemonists.
The dissenting literature I reviewed bring up valid points that the Framework for
information literacy may be recursively mimicking academic hegemony. However, this
may be a threshold rather than a hegemonic document. Within the literature and the
insight I gleaned from library practitioners there appears to be a threshold for librarians
in regard to the vague language in the Frameworks document. The greatest challenge I
discovered in the dissenting literature is that the hedging language appears to challenge
librarians who are tied to order.
Perhaps this threshold is contingent on a personal view of information science
that regards information as a singular truth (McDonough, 2015), a world where truth is
uncontested, one-size-fits-all, and most of all, neutral (McDonough, 2015). Information
observed retrospectively and within its historical context has been considered true at
any given time in history; and then later revised as the creation and dissemination of
knowledge proved it to be otherwise. For this reason, I find the Framework to be better
suited than the Standards, as a guide for teaching critical thinking and encouraging

Kaplan, 13

Library Instruction Literature Review

students to take ownership of their learning experience. As Armstrong, and
McDonough have pointed out, learning is a process of discovery that does not happen
in a prescribed manner. The research process is not a linear one. Likewise,
McDonoughs elaboration on the research process follows a similar sentiment,
Traditional information literacy also presents an overly simplistic model of the research
process that is out of sync with the reality that research is nonsequential, iterative, and a
messy process (2015 ). In the information age, where searching for information is
culturally defined by unorthodox ways of finding information (McDonough, 2015), it
seems necessary to find a new frame, analogous with the current context of the
information ecosystem, to guide academic library instructors in teaching information
literacy.
While there may not be a blueprint for how to conduct research or teach its
process to students, I think the Framework, as a guide, allows for experiential learning
and metaliteracy, which will likely help students to become critical consumers of
information. Like the research process, I think the Framework will need to change as the
context of information will inevitably shift from what is culturally recognizable now.
Objects, data, and things, like footprints in the sand, and even events, like a scream of
terror, provide evidence and inform us, but do not necessarily impart knowledge
(Buckland, 1991). The Framework, unlike the Standards, enables students own
experiences to inform the research process. Conversely, the Framework allows the
context of information to be challenged. Contrary to Seales critique of the Framework, it
does allow for unresolvable antagonisms in liberalism (2015). I think the Framework
may very well expedite threshold concepts for both students and library practitioners

Kaplan, 14

Library Instruction Literature Review

and enable a diverse student population to contribute to the scholarly conversation. At
the very least, what the Framework does not do, is undermine critical information
literacy. Instead, I think this new frame is long overdue and will provide context that is
kindred with the information age.

Kaplan, 15

Library Instruction Literature Review

Works Consulted
2011-14 5Cs 1st -Year Instruction - Claremont Colleges Library - Mind Map [Application]. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
https://www.mindomo.com/mindmap/74af10e01155488aa7f529ee80e2e7e
Allegory of the Cave. (2015, May 26). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegory_of_the_Cave&oldid=664106983
An Open Letter Regarding the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education [Letter
to the Association of College and Research Libraries]. (December 2014). Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q3PCZU2c39tmT8fGYPLOCOZFxqLwgCBtRkYC
sVpfGSc/edit?pli=1
Armstrong, A. (2011). Critical Library Instruction: Theories & Methods. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 37(4), 367.
Beilin, Ian. (2015). Beyond the threshold: Conformity, resistance, and the ACRL information
literacy framework for higher education [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/beyond-the-threshold-conformityresistance-and-the-aclr-information-literacy-framework-for-higher-education/
Booth, C. (2011). Reflective teaching, effective learning: Instructional literacy for library
educators. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Booth, C., & Matthews, B. (2012). Understanding the learner experience: Threshold concepts
and curriculum mapping Paper presented on April 7, 2012 at the California Academic
and Research Libraries Conference. San Diego, CA: Authors.
Brunetti, K. (2012). Troublesome concepts and information literacy: Investigating threshold
concepts for IL instruction. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), pp. 387-405.
Buckland, M.K. (1991). Information as Thing. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 42(5), 351- 360.
California Community Colleges. (2013, July 29). CARL Conference: Understanding the Learner
Experience [Video File]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6BsJ1BwfiQ&feature=youtu.be
Drabinski, E. (2014). Toward a kairos of library instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
40(5), 480-485.
Hall, Dale (1980). "Interpreting Plato's Cave as an Allegory of the Human Condition". Apeiron: A
Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 14 (2): 7475. Retrieved 10 December2014.

Kaplan, 16

Library Instruction Literature Review

Hofer, A.R., Townsend, L., & Framework for information literacy for higher education. (2014,
draft 3). The Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from
http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/?page_id=133
Information Literacy Standards. (2000). The Association of College and Research Libraries.
Chicago, IL.
James, J., & Gordon, E. T. (2008). Afterword. Activist Scholars or Radical Subjects? (pp. 367373). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jastram, I., Leebaw, D., & Tompkins, H. (2011, December 14). CSI (L) Carleton: Forensic
librarians and reflective practices [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2011/csil-carleton-forensic-librarians-andreflective-practices/
Matthews, B. (2011). What can you do to help with troublesome knowledge? Librarians and
threshold concepts [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2011/08/03/what-can-you-do-tohelp-with-troublesome-knowledge-librarians-and-threshold-concepts/
McDonough, B.(2015). Beyond tools and skills: Putting information back into information
literacy. In Swanson, T., & Jagman, H.(Eds), Not just where to click: Teaching
students how to think about information (pp. 37-51). Chicago: Association of College
and Research Libraries.
McGonigal, J. (2011, January 22). Be a Gamer, save the world. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved
from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704590704576092460302990884
Mattern, S. (2015). Library as infrastructure. Places Journal. Retrieved from
https://placesjournal.org/article/library-as-infrastructure/
Meyer, Jan and Land, Ray. (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages
to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines. Occasional Report 4. ETL
Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham.
Montgomery, S. &, Miller, J. (2011). The Third Place: the library as collaborative and community
space in a time of fiscal restraint. Faculty Publications. Paper 32.
ODonnell, R. (2010). A Critique of the Threshold Concept Hypothesis and an Application in
Economics. Working paper no. 164. University of Technology Sydney. Sydney,
Australia.
ODonnell, R. (2009). Threshold concepts and their relevance to economics. Robinson, Tang,
T., & Fletcher, A. (Eds.). Proceedings from ATEC 2009, 14th Annual Australasian
Teaching Economics Conference Proceedings. Brisbane, Australia : School of
Economics and Finance Faculty of Business
Plato. Rouse, W.H.D., ed.(1999). The Republic Book VII. Penguin Group Inc. pp. 365401.
Project design: Undergraduate scholarly habits ethnography project. (n.d.). CUNY Academic
Commons. Retrieved, from http://ushep.commons.gc.cuny.edu/project-

Kaplan, 17

Library Instruction Literature Review

Regalado, M., & Smale, M. (2015, May 20). Im just really comfortable: Learning at home,
learning in libraries [Blog post]. from
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/im-just-really-comfortable-learning-at-homelearning-in-libraries/
Seale, M. (2015). Enlightenment, neoliberalism, and information literacy. Academia.edu.
Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/12818745/Enlightenment_Neoliberalism_and_Information_Lit
eracy
Swanson, T. (2014, February 20). The new information literacy framework and James Madison
[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://tametheweb.com/2014/02/20/the-new-informationliteracy-framework-and-james-madison-by-ttw-contributor-troy-swanson/
Tucker, K., & Archer, A. (2014, August 1). If at first you dont assess, try, try, again [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://acrlog.org/tag/library-instruction/
Wilkinson, L. (2014, February 25). The problem with threshold concepts [Blog post]. Retrieved
from https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/the-problem-with-thresholdconcepts/

Kaplan, 18